Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ...

This is a discussion on Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; going on at:
The Volokh Conspiracy The Limits of the Federal Law Letting You Travel With a Locked, Unloaded Gun
....
the Torraco panel holds ...

Interesting discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 926A ...

....
the Torraco panel holds that any interference with § 926A doesn’t lead to liability for the police, because of the difficulty the police would face figuring out the law.
....
So police officers seem to have nearly unlimited authority to arrest and otherwise interfere with people who are exercising their § 926A rights, with no threat of damages liability or anything else deterring such arrests or interference.
....

BTW -- one of the commets, which I focussed on was:

So, a law enforcement officer, who’s job is to know the law, can get off with an “ignorant of the law” excuse in this situation, although the public can’t. And, they can assume that the citizen is transporting illegally, with no evidence or probable cause otherwise. All while the citizen is exercising what has been decided to be a right. As a non-lawyer, that just seems like bad judging.

This is why I'm working on getting a booklet (or several) of all applicable state and federal statutes to keep in my vehicle at all times. I'm also working on memorizing important parts of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

And yes police are personally protected for same as related to error when the job.
The argument being that if not then they would simply choose to not do the job/any of the job for fear of reprisal/prosecution (accountability). I have been told this direct to my face as by police during two different Citizen Police Academy courses from two different agencys.

In America you are functionally guilty upon detention until innocence can be established, and if not then subsequent to formal arrest you have right to accept or fight charges as they are made...Or to cut a deal/plea.

Thereafter it's on you to prove your innocence as beyond a shadow of a doubt against that of a prosecutor as beyond reasonable doubt, reasonable being vaguely defined by locality and case type/situation per the view of your average neighbor & juror.

Oh and if any mistakes were made along the way if they are not found out in 'discovery' by your defense team, even if they are known by the police and/or prosecution, then well you always have a second chance toward re-trial under appeal, subsequent to sentencing and being imprisoned and having your name besmirched in the press making it that much less possible to get a 'fair' and impartial trial by jury.

If your family, relatives, friends, church and 503c charitable donation 'criminal defense' fund can afford as much, the first time muchless a second.

Problem was/is that in particular the NY/NJ Port authority has been the main culprit of violating FOPA, and it seems they know it and don't care. I remember one of the Port Authority officers saying they've arrested 100 or so people for firearms violations with most claiming FOPA protection.
Instead of detaining and then having a mechanism to check the person's story, they're willing just to throw them in jail and let a judge deal with it later. With this ruling, there's not much incentive for them to do that, it's just a waste of their time.
With the 3rd circuit reaching a similiar conclusion in the Revell v. Port Authority case, that means travelers stay away from NY/NJ airports w/firearms. Hopefully this can bolster national reciprocity when the new congress goes into session next year.

"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848